Adventure Gamers - Forums

Sefir - 06 March 2014 06:53 AM

The right to withdraw votes always exists

In Greece you can vote for a president, and than withdraw your vote after the president is elected? Hell, now THAT’s a democratic country!

Sefir - 06 March 2014 07:00 AM

Of course I did.

a) Withdrawing your vote fro TPD is simply unfair for yourself.
b) Telling people which playthrough to choose (based on your personal preference) is also wrong. I can also make statements in favor of Grey Matter.

Did I miss something?

And please, no reason to raise the tones (capital letters, etc). We are just having a civilized disagreement here…

And now you’re telling me how to write my posts?
Because I capatalized ONE word in a sentence just for emphasis??
DO NOT TELL ME HOW TO WRITE MY POSTS!
Thank you.

Sefir - 06 March 2014 06:53 AM

Karlok - 06 March 2014 06:43 AM

I don’t think that “rule” is fair. Why should people who vote for both games get to decide?

Exactly because they voted both games. The right to withdraw votes always exists and it is much better than extending (again) the voting period. Of course if you have any more solutions to this problem, please tell us.

I agree with Sefir, I could have withdrawn my vote for GM here at the last second, but I didn’t. If people start withdrawing votes because they slightly prefer one game over another, but would still participate in both CP, then it will just be chaos and strategic voting, instead of voting for the CP you would love to play.

The fact that we can vote for more than one game, pretty much also dictates that this is the only fair way to decide a winner in a case of a tie.

The only other fair alternative, would be to have a second voting where everybody gets only one vote and there are only these two candidates, but that would both take much longer, and it would give exactly the same result!

The voters that voted for TPD would once again vote for TPD, and the voters for GM would vote GM again, and the rest have already decided that they don’t want either of the two. Leaving the deciding votes at the hands of Becky, Wilco and myself. Its simple math, of course assuming that no one voted strategical in the first vote.

Tex: Pandora Directive – Iznogood (leader), crabapple, wilco, Salar Sushan, Becky, Siddhi, HandsFree, Frogacuda
Secrets of Da Vinci – Kurufinwe (leader?), Chrissie (leader?), crabapple, wilco, rtrooney, Becky, Salar Sushan
Tex: UAKM – Sefir (leader), Salar Sushan, Harald, Iznogood
Tex: Overseer – Salar Sushan
Journeyman Project 2 – Harald (leader), crabapple, Salar Sushan, Karlok, diego
Gray Matter – Sefir (leader), wilco, Chrissie, Detective Mosely, Becky, diego, Dag, Iznogood, Advie
Book of Unwritten Tales – wilco, Becky
Phoenix Wright – wilco (leader), Detective Mosely, Siddhi, Kurufinwe, Timovieman
Freddy Pharkas – Dag (leader), Sefir, PolloDiablo, Harald, Salar Sushan, Coyote, rtrooney
Dracula Resurrection - [rtrooney?]
Black Dahlia - rtrooney, Kurufinwe, Coyote
The Cat Lady – Sefir (leader), Chrissie, PolloDiablo, wilco, Coyote, HandsFree, Dag
Mission Critical –  crabapple, Karlok, Kurufinwe
Sanitarium – crabapple, Sefir
Nostradamus – crabapple
Primordia – crabapple
Tony Tough and the Night of the Roasted Moths – Becky (leader), [Chrissie?], Sefir, PolloDiablo, rtrooney, Iznogood, Coyote, diego
Myst IV - Sefir (leader), Kurufinwe, Harald

Gray Matter – 9
Tex Pandora Detective  - 8
Tony Tough – 7 [+ Chrissie?]
Secrets of Da Vinci – 7
Freddy Pharkas – 7
The Cat Lady – 7
Phoenix Wright – 5
JP2 – 5
Tex UAKM - 4
Myst IV - 3
Mission Critical – 3
Black Dahlia – 3
Sanitarium – 2
Book of Unwritten Tales – 2
Nostradamus, Primordia, Tex Overseer, Dracula Resurrection - 1

Problem solved. Gray Matter is the winner. Real democratic too, right? Anybody can cancel their vote, not just people who voted for both games.

I’m putting Sefir on my ignore list. Nobody tells me I should not capatalize ONE word in a sentence, which I do all the time.

Iznogood - 06 March 2014 07:19 AM

The only other fair alternative, would be to have a second voting where everybody gets only one vote and there are only these two candidates

As the “one vote only” didn’t apply in the first round, then it would be also fair to apply the same rules in the “second round”. The object of the playthrough votes is probably not to make the “competitive” teams, but to determine the greatest number of voters for a specific game. But again, that would prolong the voting and people might just get tired of it and lose interest.

Also, who can guarantee that Tony Tough or some other game wouldn’t win if you had the voting time extended?

Well congratulations Karlok you just burned the chances for a CP of TPD because of your childish behavior!!!

Just because you have handled the voting this round, then it doesn’t mean that you can just declare whatever game you like as the winner. If you weren’t prepared to handle this objectively, democratically and in accordance with the traditions on this site, then why did you volunteer to handle the vote in the first place?!?

But I agree NOW the only possible solution is to declare GM the winner, as I would also neither participate nor lead a playthrough of PD based on this travesty.

Iznogood - 06 March 2014 07:37 AM

Well congratulations Karlok you just burned the chances for a CP of TPD because of your childish behavior!!!

And Sefir is NOT childish although he canceled his vote first?

Just because you have handled the voting this round, then it doesn’t mean that you can just declare whatever game you like as the winner.

I did NOT do that!

If you weren’t prepared to handle this objectively, democratically and in accordance with the traditions on this site, then why did you volunteer to handle the vote in the first place?!?

The “traditions” being invented by Sefir.

But I agree NOW the only possible solution is to declare GM the winner, as I would also neither participate nor lead a playthrough of PD based on this travesty.

Welcome to the Club of the Childish Voters.

Becky - 06 March 2014 07:55 AM

Would I only be making this even more controversial if I suggest that in the case of a tie, both games eventually are played, with the people who voted for both deciding which game is played first and which game is played second?

Actually I think that we are past that, at least as far as this vote is concerned.

But it is something that is worth discussing in case of a future tie.
Personally I don’t think that it is a good idea, as it could take months before the next CP starts, and people who voted for a game might not have the time or inclination for it by then.

diego - 06 March 2014 07:26 AM

Iznogood - 06 March 2014 07:19 AM

The only other fair alternative, would be to have a second voting where everybody gets only one vote and there are only these two candidates

As the “one vote only” didn’t apply in the first round, then it would be also fair to apply the same rules in the “second round”. The object of the playthrough votes is probably not to make the “competitive” teams, but to determine the greatest number of voters for a specific game.

But assuming that everybody in the first round voted for the games they would participate in a CP of, and didn’t vote strategically, which I admit would be a big assumption , then it would just lead to the exact same result, with the exact same people voting for each game.

diego - 06 March 2014 07:26 AM

Also, who can guarantee that Tony Tough or some other game wouldn’t win if you had the voting time extended?

Nobody, but I don’t think simply extending the voting time in case of a tie will work, we have to assume that everybody that wanted to vote, also actually did so.

Becky - 06 March 2014 07:55 AM

Would I only be making this even more controversial if I suggest that in the case of a tie, both games eventually are played, with the people who voted for both deciding which game is played first and which game is played second?

And their decision should be based on what, arguments or personal preferences?

I mentioned two reasonable arguments why people could (NOT: should) choose Pandora Directive:
1) It ended in second place last time, one vote less than JP3, whereas Gray Matter was not on the list;
2) Tesla Effect will be out soon.

Sefir dismissed this as telling people which playthrough to choose (based on your personal preference) and called it wrong. He said he could also make statements in favor of Grey Matter. But he didn’t. I don’t see anything wrong with posting rational arguments pro and contra both games, so voters can make up their mind.

Yes, it’s too late now. Sefir childishly left the building because he can’t stand being disobeyed, and robbed Gray Matter voters of their leader. I childishly canceled my vote because Sefir twisted my words and told me to stop capitalizing words. Iznogood childishly refused to lead a Pandora Directive playthrough because he thinks it’s now a travesty.

Unless Sefir comes back and leads Gray Matter, I see no solution. Next in line are 4 games with more or less identical scores. Good luck!

Karlok - 06 March 2014 07:21 AM

I’m putting Sefir on my ignore list. Nobody tells me I should not capatalize ONE word in a sentence, which I do all the time.

Oh, come on. Sefir was being calm and civil all along, and I don’t see how the solution he proposed is unfair.

For future CPTs I would suggest something like this:

For a defined period (one week?) anybody can nominate one game for a CPT with an indication if they are willing to be leader (not mandatory). Once that game is nominated nobody else can nominate same. At the end of the defined period voting takes place with 2 votes allowed per person. Voting is weighted with 3 points for first choice and 1 point for second choice. There is no need for a second choice if you don’t wish to make one.

Anyone can vote, not just those nominating games, as some people might only want to participate in a specific CPT which has already been nominated.

Thoughts?